Zimmerman vs. Society- What if Zimmy packed ...(two part question)

What if same situation occurred, yet, instead of a gun, Zimmerman, the sports enthuiast packed his trusty bowling ball whereever he went.

And Zimmerman chased the unarmed, Mr. Martin through the streets of Florida then saying his own life was in danger, bashed the unarmed with no balling ball Mr. Martin in the head again and again til he was dead.

Then calmly walked away and claimed the 2nd amendment allows him to protect himself.

Would a bowling ball count as part of it?

Or would the police arrest the crazy obsessive stalker who killed someone with a bowling ball?

I rest my case (part one).

Let's say Zimmerman got away with it, but then now free, he does the same thing a second time.
A serial bowling ball basher.

This is an analogy folks.

Part two-
Tell me Zimmerman would be allowed to bash someone over the head with a bowling ball he was packing (concealed of course but it was a LEGAL bowling ball, purchased legally.)

Because this is what Zimmerman is saying, only its with a gun and bullet, that is manufactured solely to kill or be killed. And has a multi-million dollar super Pac behind the gun industry wanting anything and everything with regard to guns being legally available.

So, members of the jury I ask you to vote on the above.

Thank you very much.
Hope you all had a great Thanksgiving. My being against guns has nothing against any of you personally, you all are great people (and I am being sincere), who have your own views on this issue opposite mine.

(and i use a bowling ball in the discussion because for one I like bowling, and to answer those that say their gun is used for sport or collecting. So is bowling.(though one cannot hunt with a bowling ball, though there is a novel idea for a cable tv show-
hunting by hitting a deer or bear over the head with a bowling ball.Or stepping up to the line, and rolling the ball, hoping to knock out and down the deer.)

just kidding guys).

(I should copywrite this idea before someone makes a million dollars off of it.

1. If Zimmy, on his back, had been strong enough to bash a person's brains in with a bowling ball

in self defense as his (Zimmy's) head was being bounced off the substrate (which may or may not have been concrete)...there would actually have been no need of resorting to either a bowling ball or a gun in the first place.

2. If someone is defending themselves, their weapon doesn't matter.

Only to Controllers does the object of defense matter at all. I don't care if someone beats their attacker to death with a damned ball of string and it takes 'em two days to do it; they should have that right.

Conversely, in the situation above, would you insist as rabidly as you normally do that all bowling balls be banned outside the home?

8. I'm not quite sure what you mean by this comment:

Now, a jury in Florida might listen to him. A jury in NYC might vote different. I would doubt there will be a riot if Zimmerman is found guilty. I hope there is not one if the opposite occured.

Of course, that will be the excuse some people in Florida need to pick up their weapons at that time and get those that are rioting I bet.

It sounds like you might be stereotyping Floridians who have concealed weapons permits as bloodthirsty vigilantes or racists hoping for a riot as an excuse to blow someone away. Florida has had some serious riots in the past and law enforcement agencies handled them without any involvement from armed civilians.

Most of those I know who live in Florida and have concealed weapons permits agree with me that Zimmerman was in the wrong. I think those of us with carry permits are a far more rational and responsible group of citizens than the biased media portrays.

19. The typical Floridian is not southern

Most in my area are former New Yorkers, Ohio, and Illinois. Their children, while native Floridans, are culturally the same as their parents. I am the only non southerner from the west.
Any white racist would not the let German surname get past the fact that Zimmerman's skin tone is closer to the President's than mine, since his mom is Hispanic and a grandparent who is African American. Seriously, does this look like someone who would blend in at Neo Confederate shindig?

Around here, it is Queens/Long Island South. That could be why New York has been consistently blue since air conditioning was invented.

If you come here, you will notice trailer parks flying both the US and Canadian flags. Those are the snowbirds, we have quite a few here. During the winter months, the New York and Ontario plates out number the Florida ones.

Now, a jury in Florida might listen to him. A jury in NYC might vote different. I would doubt there will be a riot if Zimmerman is found guilty. I hope there is not one if the opposite occured.

That is why Rick Scott appointed Corey. She has a reputation over charging. The evidence does not support second degree murder. That, the trial by media/electronic lynching by the media (and Spike Lee and Roseanne Barr, the dictionary definition of vigilantism). I don't see him getting a fair trial.
Manslaughter, maybe. Everything depends on specific details that happened within less than three minutes. A NYC jury would see the same way.

51. Sigh.

And the most rabid bowlers keep their bowling balls in their locker at the bowling alley and never carry or conceal them.

Every "rabid bowler" I know has their own balls, usually more than one. They keep them at home, transporting them to the alley for games. Transportation is almost universally done concealed, in a bag with other articles. Some, living close to the alley, walk or ride bicycles. Many stop at bars on the way home (if there isn't one in the alley) for a tipple or two. They have to carry into the bar, or leave it on the sidewalk to be stolen.

As far as "chased" goes, I've not seen any report that indicates anyone moved faster than a brisk walk, at best.

30. How do you stop criminals from taking guns from their houses?

it is illegal for most criminals to own guns now - how does making it more illegal do anything?

Your point about drinking and driving shows the weakness of your position - there has been zero tolerance for decades and yet being killed by a drunk driver still represents a significant threat to me and my family (a much bigger threat than illegal guns btw.).

31. you need better defined laws and make the bartender liable and have more cops on streets

there is a price for your security and it is more security

It depends what you want- to have your positions or to have your life.

You can remove the illegal guns easier than removing legal alchohol from the streets, by making sure no guns leave a permiter of the house.

It would take new laws, and then systematically somehow applying them nationwide(federal issue not state issues)

You cannot take either drinks or guns onto a plane anymore. Same techniques applied everywhere could stop problem

It is like a defect in a car that is known to the car manufacturer. They know their is a flaw in their car, and see there is an accident, and are sued, but pay off the family of the one dead.
They do that until there is an overflow of cases, at which point they say voila, there is a recall and all the cars are recalled.
When it becomes cost effective to stop the problem, it happens.

Make all bartenders and all sellers specifically liable to a crime, Sue them or put them in jail.
At which point they will either find a better life style, or adapt to the problem. Self or governemnt regulated.

33. there are ways

the neighborhoods know their problems

The neighborhood of Mr. Zimmerman and Mr. Martin seemed to feel they needed for whatever reason a special neighborhood watch program (i.e.-that alone is more security in the streets, and applied. Mr. Martin was killed because Zimmerman said he was a danger and problem eradicated for Zimmerman.

just apply this nationwide, and only have professionals on hand.(NOT paid mercanaries like blackwater, not racists with self-agendas, but qualified professionals (i.e. like 99% of the TSA is.)
Like any position there are good or bad mixed in.
Nothing is perfect

but you can keep all guns out of the perimeter and neighborhoods with total security so that one doesn't need to self-security themselves outside their home.

and just keep extending the "perimeters"

start with a movie theatre, an arena, then an entire mall,then outside the mall past the parking lot(like private parking lots mega stadiums have surrounding the stadium, etc.

btw, when I was in Los Angeles, I wanted to just look at Dodger stadium with the family. It was morning box office not open, we drove to the parking lot, and were utterly shocked to find the security said NO you cannot get into the area to even peak at the stadium.
We could not do a drive around.
Apply that technique all over, and if you have detectors of metal knowing a gun is in the area, there ae other ways now of dealing with them, knowing there is ZERO TOLERANCE.

(and you could even have a warning to the perp before using the other ways available).

all it takes is changing the laws which only takes the right legislatures or judges to apply a new law.

39. So your answer is more security and surveillance?

You want more govt. intrusion into our lives? And how do those detectors of yours tell the difference between a coin and a gun? What, pull over and frisk everyone who sets off a detector? Is that your answer?

41. You want guns all over for security. What is the difference in which security is which?

NONE at all,execept a major portion of society will never own or want to own a gun and common sense says give up your material item, it's not worth fighting for

also, in any given day, 2 people with guns cannot know which will die. It's russian roulette.
After enough battles, the cowboy will get shot and there is always a faster gun come to town

(see the old Twilight Zone for just this situation, there were two different ones.)

He who walks away, lives to fight another day.

As said prior, for 30 years I have been frisked going to Madison Square Garden. And that was to find booze.
As long as EVERYONE IS SCANNED, and it is equal (and not just young black men like is normally the situation) there is nothing wrong

And long as one doesn't beep, they don't need a frisk

BTW-isn't it time to get rid of paper and coin money? I spend $4 bucks a week on lotto tickets for a lark. 100% of every other thing I spend is credit cards, with the 3 remaining bill holdouts taking checks

Coins are no longer needed except for collectors.

(Like the subway in NYC no longer takes coins, you have to get a metro pass)

46. It most certainly is a choice

and who ruins lives with guns? Thugs mostly, that's who.
Support for more gun control is at it's lowest point in recent memory and gun violence is dropping also, so how do you explain that?

If concealed carry is such a problem with law abiding citizens, why hasn't any state moved to either repealed their law or restricted it?
There a now 49 states with some form of concealed carry laws and the last hold out, IL. will soon be passing their own CC law despite what Cook County wants, care to explain that?

59. I've asked him time and time again

if he honestly believed that criminals would obey any law forbidding the carrying of guns outside of the home and all I've gotten is if you get rid of the legal guns, then the illegal guns would go away, or some nonsense like that.
I predict that you'll get a long winded, nonsensical, jumbled answer that won't even answer your question, if he answers at all.

9. Serious answers to a not very serious question.

Part 1:

No license to carry a bowling ball is required, nor can it be concealed (It's not a tumor!), but if you could conceal it, it would not be illegal to do so. So no permit is required.

So it would come down to, did Zimmerman have a reasonable apprehension of a design to commit serious bodily injury upon himself by Trayvon? Y/N. If Yes, self-defense plays into it. If no, he is going to jail, whether he used a bowling ball, or a baseball bat, or an olive fork. The choice of implement is immaterial, beyond that it is not a firearm.

Given the circumstances of the chasing, pursuit, and encounter, as publicly known at this time, your hypothetical Zimmerman is as likely to go to jail with the bowling ball, as the real one is likely with his gun.

Part 2: A repeat encounter would potentially shed doubt upon, or bring increased scrutiny upon his claim of self-defense. It is not entirely impossible to imagine such a circumstance, hell there are people who have been hit by lightning multiple times. Maybe league night at the local bowling alley is in a shitty neighborhood. W/e. w

20. Thanks for the serious answer. I will answer reasonably.

So if he is not found guilty, he will be on zero tolerance perhaps for the future, and cannot think he could do it again next time.

In our society, unless one just wants revenge, part of the reason for punishment is to take away the danger from society of a repeat offense of the crime.

So unless Zimmerman is an obsessive racist (and to the other poster, YES, I know what he looks like and am aware of his background, which does or does not prelude him from being racist anyhow) he would (if of sound mind) not do this to another Mr. Martin.

My remarks about Florida jury were not intended to be seen as well, Florida is racist.
NO, it was just a rebuttal to someone else saying if he were found not guilty that two juries at any time and any place can find a different verdict always depending on the exact nature of the jury trial. Of course, unless one is OJ Simpson, one will not be allowed to be tried if found not guilty, a second time.

If I were the Martins, if Zimmerman is found not guilty, I would go with a civil suit like they went after OJ. And the Martins should argue that the life wasted was a valuable one and demand big bucks.

Zimmerman, on the other hand, as he is not from NY, where they have the son of sam laws, can become an anti-hero and write a book, sell the rights for a movie, and could become a media sensation if were to "control his anger". Mr. Martin himself cannot do that.

If only Zimmerman had badly wounded, but not killed Mr. Martin we might have had more to go on.

But the part where Zimmerman was away from his own house, was on an area citizen patrol, had a gun that was not part of his uniform and seemed to follow Mr. Martin is the part where self-defense appears to be a laughable(but perhaps winnable to the jury) defense.

Again, it depends on the jury (and do you want to bet Zimmerman will be made to appear darker in the trial through makeup to tone down the racial aspect, much like Mitt Rmoney was made to look Mexican for his interview with univision.

(or lighter if the jury itself leans that way).

And the same if the trial were in NY, depending where in NY itself it was located and who the jury pool was.

The bowling ball analogy is relevant though, in that it would most likely take some doing to actually kill someone with a bowling ball and it wouldn't be instant. A healthy person could withstand a blow to 99% of their body from a first "strike" with the ball.
Another person would not easily(if Mr. Martin were standing) be able to lift a say 16 pound ball and bring it down on another persons head.
If the first blow was not serious, the one who was hit could get away.

The person with the bowling ball has added weight and could not so easily run after, and if the person dropped the ball, they would not have a weapon to use. The threat to each person would be over.

IF Zimmerman were on the ground as he seems to claim, the bowling ball would do no good as the other person would not allow a free hand holding a bowling ball the leverage to lift up and down with any force needed to harm. (one could easily absorb a bowling ball into the stomach lets say, might wind the person but not kill, and if a person is down, winded, then it would be criminal for a second "strike" as the clear and present danger was gone.

Which is the point about mass shootings in an enclosed area. (with a gun, any gun).
A bowling ball cannot readily achieve anything more than a first strike. Whereas in the same time a gun could kill 50.

So if everyone would carry a bowling ball for protection, or in the use of a crime, less people would die. (one can never say no one would.)

Bowling though is a good sport if one is an angry person. Without harming a person, one can take a bowling ball, and look at the pins at the person they are angry with, and get their aggression out without harming or anyone knowing they have aggression to that person.
It is a stress reliever.

And one where all can live to bowl another day. (and you don't see Mike wanting to ban legitimate sport objects like a bowling or tennis ball (or one could also use a tennis racquet as the object too for that matter, or a golf club...Jack Nicholson (the actor) once famously
broke someones window with the club, but did not violently kill the person whose window it was.
And Baseball Hall of Famer(and personal favorite of mine just a few people down from Gibson and Koufax) Marichal once famously used a baseball bat over Dodger Johnny Roseboro, but both survived no one else was hurt, and it just took an extra year or so for Marichal to enter the Hall(as opposed to him probably getting in on the first ballot).

If only John Lennon had been hit with a bowling ball, tennis raquet or golf club. He would still be alive and Here Today(unfortunate pun because McCartney's public tribute song to John was called that).
And had in Dallas a bowling ball been dropped from the window by LHO, it would have taken some master stroke of luck for that ball to hit anything specific.
And of course, Sirhan in Los Angeles could never have mustered the surprise, the velocity and the vantage point to use a bowling ball on RFK

Impossible would have been the shot in Memphis with a bowling ball.(You would have needed a cannon, and you can't hide a cannon in plain site nor rapidly move around with one).

dylan and eric in Columbine- it's laughable to think what damage a bowling ball would have done(none).

You see, with a bowling ball, it would take away the gun being the coward's ability to not directly confront someone, taking away the element of surprise.

Seriously, has anyone tried this strategy in front of a judge? Or in a movie? It might drive the point across (taking away the mock derision that also would occur).

If I had a million dollar editor to get the above to a concise couple of paragraphs instead of my usual long (too long) posts, (like the NRA has suits who do just that), (me I'm a jeans person or sweat suit person, no suits no ties), and wants to send it to Mayor Mike, and have someone maybe make a good movie out of it, we can talk.

23. huh?

So if he is not found guilty, he will be on zero tolerance perhaps for the future, and cannot think he could do it again next time.

If the choice is murder two or nothing, he should walk.

In our society, unless one just wants revenge, part of the reason for punishment is to take away the danger from society of a repeat offense of the crime.

Were you OK with Spike Lee and Rosanne Barr inciting a lynch mob by tweeting addresses?

So unless Zimmerman is an obsessive racist (and to the other poster, YES, I know what he looks like and am aware of his background, which does or does not prelude him from being racist anyhow) he would (if of sound mind) not do this to another Mr. Martin.

My remarks about Florida jury were not intended to be seen as well, Florida is racist.
NO, it was just a rebuttal to someone else saying if he were found not guilty that two juries at any time and any place can find a different verdict always depending on the exact nature of the jury trial. Of course, unless one is OJ Simpson, one will not be allowed to be tried if found not guilty, a second time.

Florida is no more nor no less racist than New York. Most of biggest racists and assholes I have met here have New York accents.

If I were the Martins, if Zimmerman is found not guilty, I would go with a civil suit like they went after OJ. And the Martins should argue that the life wasted was a valuable one and demand big bucks.

If it is ruled justifiable homicide, Florida law forbids civil suits in such cases.

Zimmerman, on the other hand, as he is not from NY, where they have the son of sam laws, can become an anti-hero and write a book, sell the rights for a movie, and could become a media sensation if were to "control his anger". Mr. Martin himself cannot do that.

There is still a contract out on him, don't think so.

If only Zimmerman had badly wounded, but not killed Mr. Martin we might have had more to go on.

I seriously doubt it, since the evidence shows Martin as pounding Zimmerman's head in the pavement, I would have to doubt his honestly as much as Zimmerman's.

But the part where Zimmerman was away from his own house, was on an area citizen patrol, had a gun that was not part of his uniform and seemed to follow Mr. Martin is the part where self-defense appears to be a laughable(but perhaps winnable to the jury) defense.

He was going to the store, and was not doing any neighborhood watch patrol.

Again, it depends on the jury (and do you want to bet Zimmerman will be made to appear darker in the trial through makeup to tone down the racial aspect, much like Mitt Rmoney was made to look Mexican for his interview with univision.

More complex than that. He is charged with a crime that the evidence does not fit. If the jury is instructed that it is either murder two or nothing, he walks even though the State did prove manslaughter. If the jury is instructed that they may consider manslaughter, then that increases the odds of a conviction.

The media did burn in his pic to make him look whiter. I don't think a judge would allow a bowling ball analogy.

24. My 16lb league ball?

I have no doubt I could kill someone with a first strike with that sucker. That's a lot of mass, with minimal wind resistance. A headshot can most certainly kill with blunt force trauma. I wouldn't do it without the same criteria required before deploying deadly force of any type: someone's life must be in jeopardy.

Zimmerman was a pretty big dude. I wouldn't doubt he could do me wrong with a bowling ball.

Still, I am not sure what your point is? What is it predicated upon? You SEEM to be hinting it as a hypothetical alternative to carrying guns. I don't think that is realistic. I don't carry a gun because I am worried about people who would obey laws requiring them to only carry a bowling ball. Threats exist with or without bowling balls. I've seen reports of people killing upwards of 7 people with a knife in one encounter. I come up against some bastard with a knife that wants to mortgage my life against the contents of my wallet, or the contents of his own disturbed dreams, and I will reply with the maximum force available to me.

On the flipside, you'll never catch me fucking up like Zimmerman did. That encounter has all the hallmarks of him entering into the encounter with the mindset of a predator. This is what the Prosecutor will have to show, and I hope he or she is effective at it, because if they don't make that point crystal clear, the jury will be hung, and he'll walk.

(I am still concerned that they asked for Murder 1, because it is not clear to me if Florida laws allow the charge to be reduced if the standard of evidence for murder 1 is not met by the prosecution. See: Casey Anthony debacle. Prosecutorial over-reach for the evidence at hand, she went scot free. But in either case)

I don't carry a gun to look for trouble. In fact, I specifically avoid trouble. At the very least, it can result in tens of thousands in legal costs, and loss of job, and various things, to say nothing of the human cost.

Some people look for trouble. The (Apparently/allegedly) Zimmermans. Some people look to create trouble. The Loughners of the word. A firearm in my control is a deterrent against that. Just like any other first responder.

36. That law wasn't in effect when OJ was tried for murder

Regardless, OJ is right where he belongs now, in a Nevada State Penitentiary for Armed Robbery and Kidnapping.
So how do you plan to keep thugs from carrying guns in public, because I can tell you from vast experience that those thugs don't give 2 shits about any laws and would still carry no matter what.

37. I have told you specifically how. Your lumping together all as "thugs" is wrong.100% zero tolerance

40. You just don't get it do you?

POS thugs will never give up their guns and will always carry them no matter what law is passed and no amount of security is going to stop them, and the american people will never accept the kind of security and surveillance you advocate for, thankfully.

My lumping together all as thugs comes from 30 years experience, what's your experience in dealing with criminals?
How many years do you have dealing with these thugs?

43. It's human nature to go for the easy targets first.

They know thugs already do many thing illegal, no one cares they'll eventually be swept up by the wheels of justice. Now you, you're very different their justice may never be served on you. Mr. Legal gunowner. To them you're much more sinister...pure evil if you will. You prance around in society with your penis extension poked in your pants without a worry in the world for public safety. You refusing to be a fellow sheep marks you in their mind as the true enemy. You can't be trusted with freedom, you'll hurt yourself, family, and society your brand of freedom must be stopped.

62. That would be perfect.

60. You flunk Anatomy.

A healthy person could withstand a blow to 99% of their body from a first "strike" with the ball.

A powerful strike anywhere on the head with a bowling ball will almost certainly cause death by fracturing the skull and causing massive brain trauma. If your head is only 1% of your body mass, you must be very strange-looking.

68. forensic evidence speaks for him

I am sure you know lie detectors don't mean anything and are not admissible in a court of law.

true they are not admissible in court, because it indicates what you honestly think happened.

I havent' though read Mr. Martin's account of what happened. Oh, I forgot, he is dead, which of course is very convienient for Zim.

If both were alive(and one wasn't asssasssinated by a Paul Blart vigillante),even the People's Court judge or Judge Judy would find Zim guilty.

And someone here just said Zim was much bigger than Mr. Martin. This so defies disbelief.

Martin was more muscular, being a high school football player, than Zim.

If Zim gets off, then Zim=Casey A.

In Casey A, which was another Florida trial by media/electronic lynching, the State showed no evidence when, how, or where the child died. Even if she were convicted, it would have been a mistrial because the prosecutor hid exculpatory evidence from the defense, violating Florida law.

69. at any rate, if not for a gun, Mr. Martin would not have been killed.Zim was told to back off.

71. At first I had the same opinion as you,

but after following and getting information from different sources, including a rant by very liberal lawyer like Allen Dershowitz, I realized it seemed like another trial by media based on speculation and press releases. Of course ideologues from the left and far right exploiting it for their own purposes. If Martin were a white kid from a trailer park, there would be no outrage, at least not from the left. First, his parents wouldn't be able to higher a lawyer to send out press releases. Second, the far right would be screaming murder. The left?
There is some evidence that suggests that Martin confronted and attacked Zimmerman after he lost him and was walking back to his car. I'm open to see what happens in court and realize I could be wrong. What if the facts, hopefully the truth, from the court room is nothing like how you picture it?

72. no I don't.

If Zim was on the ground, even with a bowling ball by his side, there is no way Mr. Martin would have died.

For one thing, he being an athlete would or could have run away.
Second, the laws of motion, if someone is on top of you, you could not have the strength to lift a 16 pound bowling ball up to make a perfect "strike" on Mr. Martin's head.

It defies belief(as does everything Zim says.)

Zim was the agressor. He had a gun he was not suppose to have. And Mr. Martin had NO gun.

Zim seems to have stereotyped Mr. Martin as being suspicious character with no just cause.

Perhaps the gun fans wish Zim used a bowling ball, as it is an inconvienence to the cause of guns that he used a gun.

As for the verdict? I do fully expect not to be happy. This is America after all, and things are black and white.
Which is why the OJ verdict was perfect. That one in a million getting back at the same ole same ole.
When people finally said "they were mad as hell and they ain't gonna take it" anymore.
Of course as that was one in a million, it isn't likely to often happen again.

But the same case could be made that if the Rodney King fiasco wasn't filmed, nothing would have become of it.

If the cameras weren't there in that famous bus ride, Rosa Parks (and the ones before her) would not have been known.

And though 2 billion people have gone through the airport checks with no problems,
3 troublemakers looking to make tv news with tv cameras happening to be there(wink wink) slandered an entire industry for ulterior motives.
(perhaps it was a gun groupie or some faction wanting to rid the security checks, knowing that it was something like that which could alter the gun conundrum about legal vs. illegal.)

Take away the gun that day, and Mr. Martin would still be alive. And Zim wouldn't have to worry about going to jail.

73. You know nothing ...

... and yet you persist in your assertions. Could a man on his back swing a bowling ball, which could weigh as little as ten pounds, with sufficient force to kill an assailant? I think so. You don't. Neither one of us knows. It's a fruitless and mindless exercise in speculation. There are any number of objects that Zimmerman could have been carrying that could have been used as a deadly weapon. Why are we talking about bowling balls?

If the cameras weren't there in that famous bus ride, Rosa Parks (and the ones before her) would not have been known.

75. Incorrect.....16lb = XDS 8lb = LCP 10lb = PF9

Your boy Zimmerman picked one of the cheapest 9mm's on the market, and as we all know the 9mm won't save you. Not much bravado in a Kel Tec pf9. It's basically the minimum firearm some may trust their life with. The 10# Ball of the self defense world.

If he were truly macho he'd have packed a 45 or at least a 40 S&W....However, I must say real men carry a 357.

76. Now it's getting ridiculous.

Why would big strong Zim a macho macho man, use a 10 pound ball? No way he would

If he's such a macho macho man, then he would have no trouble swinging a 16-pound ball while on his back -- especially if he were holding it with both hands. And who's to say he wouldn't be? It's all just hypothetical bullshit anyway.

80. When someone is sitting on top of someone ...

... and pummeling the prone person's face, the prone person's head is, of necessity, within reach of the assailant's arms. Therefore, the assailant's head must be within the reach of the prone person's arms, unless there is a gross disparity in physical size.

You could hit him off and then pound and pound and pound him

however, then it is not self defense because the person would already not be a threat

You are the one proving that what Zimmy did was premeditated 1st degree murder.

No -- the bowling ball scenario is yours. I would suggest, however, that if Martin had been riding his flying unicorn that day, he might have been able to avoid the encounter altogether.

with any object but a gun, Mr. Martin would be alive, maybe wounded, but alive.

47. He should have been thinking before he got out of his car. nr

18. It's important to realize that self-defense laws

do not depend on the 2nd Amendment for their validity -- the 2nd Amendment is about the right to possess (and in my opinion, carry) arms, not about the specific circumstances of their use for self defense or anything else.

Has Zimmy's team actually brought up the 2nd Amendment in their defense? I need a cite for that one. It wouldn't make any sense, since they aren't (to my knowledge) arguing over the Constitutionality of any Florida statute. They're trying to demonstrate that he did not violate a valid statute.

52. More of a mortar/howitzer, but freakin' awesome nonetheless.... n/t

55. Most self-defense laws don't stipulate valid weapons.

What if same situation occurred, yet, instead of a gun, Zimmerman, the sports enthuiast packed his trusty bowling ball whereever he went.

And Zimmerman chased the unarmed, Mr. Martin through the streets of Florida then saying his own life was in danger, bashed the unarmed with no balling ball Mr. Martin in the head again and again til he was dead.

Then calmly walked away and claimed the 2nd amendment allows him to protect himself.

Would a bowling ball count as part of it?

Or would the police arrest the crazy obsessive stalker who killed someone with a bowling ball?

I rest my case (part one).

There are some errors and some assumptions in your scenario that may not be true.

First of all, most self-defense laws don't stipulate valid weapons to use for self-defense. They simply state when one may use deadly force to defend themselves, others, or property (depending on the state).

If the only weapon you have available to defend yourself with is the Hope Diamond, then that's what you use and assuming you are exercising a valid right of self-defense, the law won't care.

Of course, most people don't carry such cumbersome items around with them for self-defense.

Secondly, you are making assumptions about the case that are not yet known from a trial. You state that, "Zimmerman chased the unarmed, Mr. Martin through the streets of Florida then saying his own life was in danger."

This remains to be seen.

Here is the way I understand the series of events to date. To be sure, I have not read anything about this case in some months.

1) Zimmerman was patrolling his neighborhood and spotted Martin. He called 911. The dispatch said they "didn't need" Zimmerman to follow Martin.
2) Zimmerman was not required to obey the dispatch's suggestion and continued to follow Martin.
3) Martin was aware he was being followed, according to testimony from his girlfriend, who he was talking to up to the confrontation.
4) Zimmerman approached Martin and asked him what he was doing.
5) At this point, an physical confrontation started. It is not known at this time who started the confrontation. According to Zimmerman, Martin attacked him. There seems to be physical evidence indicating that Zimmerman was in a physical confrontation and had grass and dirt on his back and was injured on the back of his head, consistent with a witness who claimed to see Martin on top of Zimmerman.

The real question here is: Who rightfully feared for their safety and could claim self-defense.

The answer probably is: Both of them.

This is the problem with Stand Your Ground laws, though it is probably going to be a very rare situation. That is, you have two people who encounter each other, both rightfully fearing for their safety from the other.

I personally am awaiting the outcome of the trial for more information.